ExxonMobil’s U.S. taxes and U.S. earnings – Some relevant numbers for Washington

In trying to justify tax increases on oil companies, politicians like to use big numbers. They talk about our worldwide earnings, which we reported last week were $10.7 billion during the first quarter of 2011.

They do that to make the case that we shouldn’t receive economy-wide tax deductions, such as one I’ve written about before that’s in place to support manufacturing jobs in the United States, or another that prevents U.S. companies from paying double taxation on income earned outside the country.

Their argument is that because we had strong worldwide earnings, that we’re somehow not paying our fair share of taxes.

Well, let me give you some quick numbers to help you decide.

During the first quarter of this year, our U.S. operating earnings were $2.6 billion. The rest of our earnings – more than $8 billion – came from operations in more than 100 countries worldwide.

Here’s a number you won’t hear in Washington: During the first quarter, on those U.S. earnings of $2.6 billion, we incurred tax expenses in the United States of $3.1 billion. That’s right – our U.S. tax bill was higher than our U.S. earnings.

That includes income taxes, sales-based taxes and others such as property taxes. But it doesn’t include royalties or lease payments we pay to the government to produce oil and gas on government-controlled lands, which would make the government’s take from our operations even bigger.

Another number you won’t hear in Washington, which also puts our earnings into context, is our earnings relative to our sales. During the quarter, we made about 9 cents for every dollar of sales, which is about average for U.S. industries. We earned $10.7 billion in worldwide earnings on worldwide sales of $114 billion. That’s about half (or less) of what companies in pharmaceuticals or computers make, just to name a few. But strangely, there’s not much talk about reducing their tax deductions.

Here are a few more numbers to consider.

In 2010, our total tax expenses in the United States were $9.8 billion, which includes an income tax expense of more than $1.6 billion. That $9.8 billion in taxes exceeded our 2010 U.S. operating earnings of $7.5 billion.

And over the past five years, we incurred a total U.S. tax expense of almost $59 billion, which was $18 billion more than we earned from our U.S. operations during the same period.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Increasing taxes on U.S.-based oil and gas companies only helps our international competitors. At a time when ensuring the competitiveness of U.S. industry is so critical, it’s hard to believe that lawmakers would seek to give foreign energy companies an advantage over American-owned companies.

As these numbers show, claims that ExxonMobil isn’t paying its fair share of taxes are false – as are any claims that Americans don’t benefit from the global operations of U.S. oil companies.

Many of the people employed by the U.S. oil and natural gas industry – from engineers to contractors to executive assistants – support overseas projects. Without them, many of these jobs wouldn’t exist. And as I’ve mentioned before, U.S. shareholders are one of the largest beneficiaries of a U.S. oil and natural gas company’s international portfolio.

The bottom line is that Americans benefit both from ExxonMobil’s U.S. and global operations in the form of taxes, jobs and shareholder returns.

We’re paying our fair share of taxes. It’s time we had a fair discussion of energy and tax policy – based on the facts.


36 Comments

Already have a username? Log in to comment. First-time commenting? Sign up to create your username. It's easy, and we won't share your information.

  1. Jeff Hannon says:

    Ken,
    XOM is paying more than its fair share. Virtually any knowledgeable and observant person knows that. I don’t believe the administration is interested in a “fair discussion of energy and tax policy – based on the facts.”

    Other tax targets of the administration are also paying more than their fair share – in my opinion. But increasing marginal tax rates on them continues to be a prime objective of the administration.

    My understanding is that one of the “oil industry tax subsidies” the administration wants to terminate is the one that encourages Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). My understanding is that those projects produce oil from mature oil fields that would otherwise be shut down. To me, a tax incentive for CO2 injection projects to extend production from old fields, makes perfect sense. But the comments from the administration don’t seem to get into facts like that.

    As a stockholder, I appreciate the effort to communicate XOM’s side of the picture.

    Thx

    • Ralph Day says:

      In 2009 Exxon paid $0 dollars in taxes? How do you explain that? I can’t wait until all these hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles come out and more and more American’s get smarter with purchasing these cars or motorcycles so that we won’t need your company! Then what will Exxon do? How to you account for the increase in profit when everyone is paying $4.00 for gas??? your cost don’t increase but your revenue sure has….must be nice!

      • robert moore says:

        Hey Ralph: Hybrid vehicles? You know when you plug in an electric car your plugging into coal! And when you drive your electric car your driving down a highway that was made with coal and other materials that were burned in a kiln at a cement plant, and that a cement plant is second to energy plants in production of Co2 gases. How much energy did it take to produce that motorcycle? How much fuel was burned to produce your house? Were are you going to dispose of those dead batteries from your electric car when they eventually die? There is no free lunch! Higher taxes on energy companies only produces higher costs. Any smart business owner would do the same. The government is out of control.

        • Todd Bennington says:

          Ex on does not pay those taxes, it’s workers pay those taxes. The gasoline and diesel engines have had a hundred years to develop into this whole petroleum based market. To judge the new and developing technologies against the gas/diesel vehicles and supporting infrastructure is wrong. Exxon as well as all major companies pay no taxes. It’s employees do. These employees will continue to pay taxes and exxom will continue to drill for gas and oil. The people who will lose are the investors and I say screw them they can invest in alternative technologies and their newly developing infrastructures.

          Todd Bennington
          tbennington23@yahoo.com

        • J Mintz says:

          If revenues – expenses is greater than zero, Exxon makes a profit and pays corporate income tax. Exxon also pays taxes as part of it’s expenses through oil well fees, etc.

          Exxon’s, and EVERY OTHER comany’s goal is to maximize profit and future profits for the shareholders. You don’t just take your profits and “make jobs.” You only “create” jobs if that will increase your bottom line profit.

          You think corporations are too greedy, and shareholders are making huge hauls of profit? Than go buy some shares… It’s pretty simple, anyone can do it.

      • Bob Stover says:

        Ralph, please buy the hybrid or electrical. You will make it easier on those of us that do not drink the koolaid. That will save more oil for the rest of us.
        You probably love those new light bulbs as well. The batteries you need for your car, require oil to make the casings, and mining to get the minerals for the internals. The produces created to manufacture those wonderful batteries are pretty nasty. So expect to pay a lot to get rid of them, when they wear out.
        The same go for your lightbulbs. They contain mercury, so once they are you only choice expect a fee to dispose of them.
        By the way when the price of fuel goes up, so do the costs the oil companies incure. What do you think, they have a pipe line and refinery that follows them where ever they go. As the price of oil goes up everyone is effected.

    • Michael Grillo says:

      This site is incredibly self serving. The fact is that corporate income taxes have been dropping for decades, with corporate taxes accounting for less than 9% of federal tax revenue in 2010. Oil companies such as XOM have made large profits for years and absolutely do not need the subsidies they have been granted. Subsidies should instead be offered to sustainable alternative energy as an incentive to develop these as an adjunct to fossil fuels, as they will be needed in the future. Remember, oil and natural gas are finite resources. As such, they will decline, and we must be prepared for this. The oil and gas that is left is harder to find and more costly to extract, both in terms of dollars and the environmental impact. I could refute XOM’s position for hours, but don’t have the time. Remember folks, XOM generally tries to control the message…they’ve been doing it for years with climate change and they’re trying to do it here with their nice folksy presentation on natural gas extraction. Shame on XOM.

      • Michael Grillo says:

        By the way, check out theoildrum.com for a real discussion on energy issues…they don’t have an agenda.

        • Michael Grillo says:

          In today’s Fortune, it was reported that XOM is #5 in the US with $35 billion of untaxed foreign income in 2009. In that same year XOM spent $27,430,000 lobbying congress to continue the sweet deals, second only to the US Chamber of Congress. While the powerless middle class struggles to make ends meet, large corporations like XOM (especially XOM) annually spend greater amounts to ensure that things continue to go their way. Look XOM, I’m not against oil companies…we need petroleum and we need to continue seeking new sources. My gripe is that you are hugely profitable, and not paying your fair share of taxes. Most people are beginning to realize that we do not have a level playing field in the USA, and your corporate policies are designed to see that it stays that way.

  2. Kim Righetti says:

    The local paper reported that you made a 65 million dollar profit last quarter, yet gas prices keep going up. How can you justify this? If you guys don’t get these prices down, you’re asking for the government to step in and regulate them for you.

  3. Kim Righetti says:

    Oil has dropped $13.00 a barrel so why aren’t you lowering your prices?

  4. Lyle Carlson says:

    May issue of AARP bulletin, p 6, contains statement by Sen Sanders, I-VT, that ExxonMobil has paid little or no U.S. income tax in recent years. I’d like to have the figures for U.S. Income Tax ExxonMobil paid in 2009, 2010 and projected for 1Q2011. Need this to rebut comments from friends and family. Would also use when writing my NC State Rep and Senators. This is a hot item right now in view of reports that GE did not pay any U.S. Income Tax in 2010.

  5. ehsan ehsani says:

    I would also like to add another consideration: Many pension funds and similar organizations own stocks of relatively “low risk” companies such as ExxonMobil.

    In the case the competitiveness of these companies will be weakened in the future, the result might translate itself into a negative impact on welfare of many aging Americans.

  6. Bob Gibson says:

    I have no doubt ExxonMobil pays lots of tax. Like you said, ExxonMobil sells lots of products resulting in lots of revenue. However,you some times use the term tax expense instead of consistently using tax. This normally means there is a difference between the two terms but you do not explain that difference if there is one. When I took basic accounting there were revenues which were reduced by costs and expenses which resulted in gross profit which was reduced by taxes to leave net profit for the period reported. Since you can deduct taxes paid to foreign countries from your tax libiltity to the US, it would be clearer to the reader and your argument would be stronger if you provided these figures. This would show taxes paid, to which entities, and how the tax libility was calculated. If ExxonMobil really paid $18 billion in taxes more than you earned over five years, the shareholders would have an excellent reason to replace company management.

  7. mark hicar says:

    XOM has 114 billion in revenue for the 1st quarter; and 10.7 BILLION IN EARNINGS! That is for 1 freaking quarter…. how do you justify needing any more tax breaks????
    Are you quoting your 1st quarter since your property taxes are only during that quarter?
    If there are unfair subsidies to pharmaceuticals (besides arrangements that provide for unprofitable vaccines/3rd world medicines) I am all for ripping out those too!

  8. Timothy Bair says:

    I am extremely pleased to see ExxonMobil and hopefully other American producers pushing back against the government propaganda that incessantly misrepresents your, and others contributions to the United States tax base and the modern way of life petroleum products provide to us here and the world.

    This approach with others around the world is in order, also, as it appears well orchestrated.

    Your recent statement that the government represents 40 cents per gallon in taxes to Exxon’s approximate 7 cents in profits is an excellent means for the public to begin to understand who are the real fat cats, corporate, political, or individual.

    Considering the anti-American production moratoriums while encouraging your competition in South America and elsewhere around the globe (and primarily state, or dictatorship owned, I would add) to increase their exports to the US, while causing platform owners and operators, as a matter of financial survival, to relocate there, may be a violation of Title 10 USC and Title 19 USC which require the Defense Dept. and any regulatory agency to review the impact of any critical technology or defense regulation upon the nations security and the national economy. I believe this directly impacts the national economy critical defense infrastructure, and your company’s role in that defense infrastructure.

    TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART IV > CHAPTER 148 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 2505 National technology and industrial base: periodic defense capability assessments

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00002505—-000-.html

    TITLE 19 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IV > § 1862 Safeguarding national security

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode19/usc_sec_19_00001862—-000-.html

    In light of this unconstitutional attack upon your right of free association and commerce which is an attack upon us all, an ad campaign calling for ending the multi-trillion dollar “subsidy” to the US government, and perhaps some politicians campaign funds, is in order.

    From one of the smallest taxpayers in… read more »

    …the country to the largest, it behooves me to defend your rights as vigorously as my own.

    I will do so with the equal intensity of my recent three-year long defense of Boeing and their contractors and the blatant violation of their position as a critical technology provider and contractor.

    The WTO upheld their (and my) assertions with regard to state subsidies and unfair competition…you would be wise to read their findings in their entirety, as they clearly pertain to your industry also. To make matters worse, our, and your own tax dollars are being use to subsidize these foreign state owned entities.

    The American people are ready for leadership. It is time for our corporate citizens to join average citizens and consumers and tell Washington we are tired of the class exploitation and being their victims. We are tired also of being required to pay them for such abuse.

    We dealt with that kind of abuse from George III. We will not tolerate a repeat.

    As a disclaimer, and as I have told others, please be aware I have no “dog in this hunt” other than my position as a fellow citizen and taxpayer. I own no stock in your company.

    Thank you for standing up for capitalism and American free enterprise.

  9. JAMES SWEENEY says:

    Let’s have an even playing field —- whatever tax deductions the oil co.’s lose, all co.’s lose.(Mr.Cohen states all companies can have these same deductions). Question—- What other companies have a depletion allowance? How would that be workeed in for other companies?
    If as Mr. Cohen states, Exxon incurred $59 billion U.S. tax expense, and that was $18 billion more than was earned —- why are’nt they operating at a loss? Where does the media get their info that no income tax was paid? Is it possible that the oil companies can write off this tax?
    it is reported that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world — i don’t think that’s the important statistic— what is the actual rate they pay? That’s what is important.
    Having said all this, I don’t want to denigrate the public good that oil companies and others do throughout the world — but let’s be practicle, they have to show another corporate side or the only side seen will be the “bad company” side.
    The “balance” we desperately need in Washington, is also needed in a fair tax policy — for everyone.

    jrs9247

  10. Liberty Bell says:

    One of the most profitable companies in America can still be very profitable without tax-payer subsidies or tax breaks. I appreciate that your company employs millions – but without your workers you wouldn’t make those profits.

    One thing that has not been mentioned and that I think gets very little attention when talking about tax policies for large corporations is all the perks that companies get to write off to reduce that tax burden in the first place. Money spent by the company for corporate jets, lavish lifestyles, marketing expenditures the average American could only dream of, golf, travel, you-name-it, if you can call it a “marketing” expense then you get to deduct that from your tax burden. Not to mention money spent on lobbying our congressmen and women to write more tax policies that increase your profit margin.

    Meanwhile average Americans get a paycheck which already has taxes taken out and then have to pay for food, clothing, living expenses, and FUEL COSTS. It leaves them very little left over. Your tax burden is slight comparatively speaking when you get to write off your luxuries and expenses and then pay taxes on the balance. So, why then should the taxpayer subsidize your business when you are already one of the most profitable businesses in America?

  11. Ralph Day says:

    I seriously hope in ten years when cars require no fuel and housing requires no oil for heat when companies like Exxon are no longer around that you wish you would have listened then. All they do is spin the story to try and explain away what they can not……..they are simply raking in the dough and laughing all the way to the bank while consumers scrap pennies off the floor to buy gas to go to work……..may GOD have mercy or your souls!!

    • Radical Capitalist says:

      Exactly how do you think motion and heat are going to be created in 10 years? Fairy dust? The fact that Exxon makes 7 cents on a gallon of gas and the taxes are 40 cents doesn’t make you think? You are horribly uninformed – educate yourself and make some cogent arguments here.

  12. Scott Roche says:

    Hi Ken,

    Thanks for posting these numbers. It was actually very confusing to try to find real data from anyone regarding Exxon’s earnings and taxes paid. Everyone and their mother seems to be quoting a different number…

    Best,
    Scott Roche

  13. Jane Sargent says:

    Into censorship too, no surprise.

    • Jane Sargent says:

      I appreciate thatt you atleast still believe in the first amendment even if you don’t think you should pay taxes that I should support you. I’m tired of supporting the rich while they try to tell us it is the poor stealing from us. I will never buy your product again and I had a Mobil card for years. So long, may you get what you deserve you fine ‘Americans’

  14. Carl Mitchell says:

    Lately I have found myself close to ears when I finally must purchase gas for my car. My heart starts to race as I try to subdue my disgust for the particular oil company who supplies the station where I have decided to “Gas UP”. I am trying to survive solely on Social Security and find the Oil Companies want more and more of what little money receive each. Bearing this in mind you can imagine the contempt for your CEO and the other CEOs of the other Oil Companies when the declare the Billion dollar profits they made from January through March of 2011. These profits were made off the backs of myself and others like me. I find myself wishing that you and others as greedy as you, choke on your food during the extravagant meals you can afford with my money while I eat rice.

  15. Derek Turney says:

    Ken,
    Your argument is laughable, you are making a net profit of over 10% on a commodity while the price is high, if the price of oil was near a 3 year average your profit as a percent of sales would be astronomical. There are very few businesses that are able to make a net profit over 10% of sales but to do it on the margins of a commodity is unheard of and obscene. I am all for companies being profitable but your business is a borderline monopoly that controls our economy and dictates the direction of our defense department, your profits should be strong but not obscene.

    If big oil can’t police yourselves from gouging the American public, I hate to say it but government will have to step in. Regulate yourselves or the Public Service Commission will or even worse, Nationalize oil companies because you are a threat to bring down our economy and national defense.

  16. Mark Forster says:

    1. Why is the price of “hot fuel” adjusted for at the wholesale level and not at the retail level? Why did you spend so much money to influence the Bureau of Weights and Measures when they were considering this issue?

    2. What does the price of a barrel of oil purchased this month have to do with the price of gas refined last month?

    3. When the price of a barrel of oil decreases, why is the percentage of drop in gas prices (if any), less than the reverse?

    4. Suppose your Republican puppets (I’m a conservative Independent), succeed in getting you permission to drill (baby drill), wherever you like. How can we trust you to not sell the new-found oil to China or India, or some other non-American customer? Since you constantly preach the law of supply and demand, what possible reason could we have to believe you would do anything that might lower the price of gas right here at home?

    5. I have friends who have been threatened because they’ve developed 60 MPG automotive fuel delivery systems. Why?

    6. Why is your sense of responsibilty numbed by the Exxon Valdez (not known as the incompetent Barack Obama Valdez), disaster?

    Please answer the questions honestly.

    Thank you.

  17. Mark Forster says:

    The road to you know where is paved with Exxon petroleum products.

  18. Richard Lukes says:

    I do not like high gas prices. BUT think about it -
    Exxon makes a lot of profit and the government wants to punish them.
    General Motors is on bankruptcy’s doorstep and the government “gives” them money.
    What kind of message is the government sending??

  19. Roger MacDonald says:

    So Exxon, from the majority of the comments, are you getting that people don’t believe you. Gee why would that be… -GREED-

    It’s corporate America that is out of control, not the government. Do you also get that most Americans don’t give a tinker’s curse about your shareholders or your grossly overpaid executives.

    Your total tax liability speeds right past the fact that it includes all levels county; municipal; state and federal; that is a manipulative statement intended to mislead.

    All of these comments and counterpoints gloss over one thing; corporate America and their GOP politicians have spent the last thirty years setting up this state of affairs; to hold the public hostage and extort more and more money from working Americans.

    Ask any economist to show you an example of a national economy where heavy industry and manufacturing have been marginalized -good luck because no long-term models exist. The jobs sent overseas by corporate America speak a lot louder than the dissembling rot on sites such as these.

    I’m encouraged by these comments because it shows Americans are waking up and getting fed up with corporate America’s lies, greed, and manipulation.

    You people are a gang of greedy vermin that working Americans are wising up to; may you reap what your greed and lies have sown.

  20. frank stasi jr says:

    Higher taxes just means the consumer will pay more. (I surely don’t want to pay any more at the pump then I have to) However if XOM is making earnings of $10B in a quarter why don’t they do more for us here in the U.S.? I am not saying they are doing nothing but if you are making more $’s spend MUCH more charitable $’s here in the U.S. I think the argument for higher taxes for the government would be a little more difficult if XOM was seen as a more charitable company. Perception is reality.

  21. Bill Donovan says:

    The problem isn’t what the government does to Exxon, or who pays the taxes; those are symptoms of the problem. The problem is that Exxon, and other big earners, take in revenue and then don’t release it back into the economy. Capital has to flow, or we will all be jobless. There’s a huge pile of money, and a huge amount of unemployed people, but the capital and the people are not meeting. Corporations should be given incentives to spend in the USA, who cares if its through taxes or development or jobs.

  22. Jeff Hannon says:

    Ken,
    XOM is paying more than its fair share. Virtually any knowledgeable and observant person knows that. I don’t believe the administration is interested in a “fair discussion of energy and tax policy – based on the facts.”

    Other tax targets of the administration are also paying more than their fair share – in my opinion. But increasing marginal tax rates on them continues to be a prime objective of the administration.

    My understanding is that one of the “oil industry tax subsidies” the administration wants to terminate is the one that encourages Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). My understanding is that those projects produce oil from mature oil fields that would otherwise be shut down. To me, a tax incentive for CO2 injection projects to extend production from old fields, makes perfect sense. But the comments from the administration don’t seem to get into facts like that.

    As a stockholder, I appreciate the effort to communicate XOM’s side of the picture.

    Thx

    • Ralph Day says:

      In 2009 Exxon paid $0 dollars in taxes? How do you explain that? I can’t wait until all these hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles come out and more and more American’s get smarter with purchasing these cars or motorcycles so that we won’t need your company! Then what will Exxon do? How to you account for the increase in profit when everyone is paying $4.00 for gas??? your cost don’t increase but your revenue sure has….must be nice!

      • robert moore says:

        Hey Ralph: Hybrid vehicles? You know when you plug in an electric car your plugging into coal! And when you drive your electric car your driving down a highway that was made with coal and other materials that were burned in a kiln at a cement plant, and that a cement plant is second to energy plants in production of Co2 gases. How much energy did it take to produce that motorcycle? How much fuel was burned to produce your house? Were are you going to dispose of those dead batteries from your electric car when they eventually die? There is no free lunch! Higher taxes on energy companies only produces higher costs. Any smart business owner would do the same. The government is out of control.

        • Todd Bennington says:

          Ex on does not pay those taxes, it’s workers pay those taxes. The gasoline and diesel engines have had a hundred years to develop into this whole petroleum based market. To judge the new and developing technologies against the gas/diesel vehicles and supporting infrastructure is wrong. Exxon as well as all major companies pay no taxes. It’s employees do. These employees will continue to pay taxes and exxom will continue to drill for gas and oil. The people who will lose are the investors and I say screw them they can invest in alternative technologies and their newly developing infrastructures.

          Todd Bennington
          tbennington23@yahoo.com

        • J Mintz says:

          If revenues – expenses is greater than zero, Exxon makes a profit and pays corporate income tax. Exxon also pays taxes as part of it’s expenses through oil well fees, etc.

          Exxon’s, and EVERY OTHER comany’s goal is to maximize profit and future profits for the shareholders. You don’t just take your profits and “make jobs.” You only “create” jobs if that will increase your bottom line profit.

          You think corporations are too greedy, and shareholders are making huge hauls of profit? Than go buy some shares… It’s pretty simple, anyone can do it.

      • Bob Stover says:

        Ralph, please buy the hybrid or electrical. You will make it easier on those of us that do not drink the koolaid. That will save more oil for the rest of us.
        You probably love those new light bulbs as well. The batteries you need for your car, require oil to make the casings, and mining to get the minerals for the internals. The produces created to manufacture those wonderful batteries are pretty nasty. So expect to pay a lot to get rid of them, when they wear out.
        The same go for your lightbulbs. They contain mercury, so once they are you only choice expect a fee to dispose of them.
        By the way when the price of fuel goes up, so do the costs the oil companies incure. What do you think, they have a pipe line and refinery that follows them where ever they go. As the price of oil goes up everyone is effected.

    • Michael Grillo says:

      This site is incredibly self serving. The fact is that corporate income taxes have been dropping for decades, with corporate taxes accounting for less than 9% of federal tax revenue in 2010. Oil companies such as XOM have made large profits for years and absolutely do not need the subsidies they have been granted. Subsidies should instead be offered to sustainable alternative energy as an incentive to develop these as an adjunct to fossil fuels, as they will be needed in the future. Remember, oil and natural gas are finite resources. As such, they will decline, and we must be prepared for this. The oil and gas that is left is harder to find and more costly to extract, both in terms of dollars and the environmental impact. I could refute XOM’s position for hours, but don’t have the time. Remember folks, XOM generally tries to control the message…they’ve been doing it for years with climate change and they’re trying to do it here with their nice folksy presentation on natural gas extraction. Shame on XOM.

      • Michael Grillo says:

        By the way, check out theoildrum.com for a real discussion on energy issues…they don’t have an agenda.

        • Michael Grillo says:

          In today’s Fortune, it was reported that XOM is #5 in the US with $35 billion of untaxed foreign income in 2009. In that same year XOM spent $27,430,000 lobbying congress to continue the sweet deals, second only to the US Chamber of Congress. While the powerless middle class struggles to make ends meet, large corporations like XOM (especially XOM) annually spend greater amounts to ensure that things continue to go their way. Look XOM, I’m not against oil companies…we need petroleum and we need to continue seeking new sources. My gripe is that you are hugely profitable, and not paying your fair share of taxes. Most people are beginning to realize that we do not have a level playing field in the USA, and your corporate policies are designed to see that it stays that way.

  23. Kim Righetti says:

    The local paper reported that you made a 65 million dollar profit last quarter, yet gas prices keep going up. How can you justify this? If you guys don’t get these prices down, you’re asking for the government to step in and regulate them for you.

  24. Kim Righetti says:

    Oil has dropped $13.00 a barrel so why aren’t you lowering your prices?